The Abbott government expects the Obama administration to offer new impetus to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership deal this week at the first bilateral meeting between Prime ­Minister
Tony Abbott
and US President
Barack Obama
.

Progress on the contentious deal will be an important sign of the United States’ commitment to the region at a time when there is a huge question mark hanging over just where the US’s policy is heading in the Asia-Pacific as ­tensions increase in the region.

A major foreign policy speech by Mr Obama two weeks ago didn’t mention his administration’s 2011 “pivot" to Asia, played down the threat posed by China, and instead focused on the renewed threat of terrorism flowing from conflict in Syria.

Yet just a month earlier, Mr Obama had reaffirmed the US commitment to come to Tokyo’s aid in case of a flare-up with China over the disputed Senkaku Islands.

The two leaders also meet after a period in which the new government in Canberra has had a lot to say about our relationships with China and Japan, but has in recent months had relatively little to say about our relationship with the US.

The meeting in Washington will therefore be a crucial one for determining what the two alliance partners expect of each other.

Mr Obama announced the pivot of American foreign policy towards our region when he addressed our Parliament in 2011, a term later replaced by “rebalancing".

But his administration’s actions and statements since then have left many foreign policy analysts unclear about where it may go next, particularly at a time when relations between China and its near neighbours are becoming alarmingly tense.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

The Abbott government is just as keen to know where the administration is heading in its Asia-Pacific strategy.

The future of the TPP – and its underlying message of regional economic ­co-operation – does not really address the security and defence issues thrown up by escalating regional tensions, ­particularly between China and Japan.

Few in Canberra will publicly speak of the risks of an armed confrontation between China and Japan, yet the prospect of an incident in the East China Sea escalating into a major conflict is recognised as very real.

Many Australians would find the comparisons, behind closed doors, between the current regional tensions and the spiralling treaty arrangements that led to World War I rather ­disconcerting.

There was a rare public ­acknow­ledgement of the dangers ­during a ­Senate estimates committee hearing in Canberra last week when Defence Minister
David Johnston
and his departmental secretary
Dennis Richardson
were asked how serious and significant the tensions were from Australia’s perspective. “Instability in an area where we have a very large ­proportion of our export earnings flowing through to market is very serious," Senator Johnston said.

“It is very serious indeed."

Asked by Labor senator
Sam Dastyari
if that was also his view, Mr Richardson said: “Yes, absolutely."

Asked if there was a threat of actual conflict breaking out, Mr Richardson said that “no one wants conflict".

“I do not believe that either China, Japan or the countries of Asia want ­conflict," he said.

“However, there is always the risk of an accident or a miscalculation. It is that concern about miscalculation that could lead unexpectedly to something."

Asked how this might change ­Australia’s role, Mr Richardson said “we do not go there".

Government sources describe China and Japan as “two old bulls in a ­paddock", and bulls with very old ­grievances between them which make the risk of escalation even greater.

With Chinese tensions over ­maritime territorial disputes also now engulfing South Korea and south-east Asia, the concerns for Australia and its trade corridors for coal and iron ore only increase.

Australia is crucial for the US’s continuing assertion of its ­dominance in our region, particularly at a time when the US capacity to beef up defence spending is limited.

The staggering commitment to a 6 per cent increase in real terms in defence spending in the May budget was seen as a bone to throw to a ­Washington that has been increasing pressure on its allies to do more heavy lifting on defence spending.

Equally, the sudden rolling over of the Japanese in negotiations over a free trade agreement was seen in part as a way of locking in the Australian ­relationship .

The big question is whether the US will seek even more from Australia by way of even greater enmeshment of our defence forces, or possibly even forward deployments in the region.

HMAS Sydney has already been deployed with the US Navy’s 7th fleet, a position that would put Australia at the centre of any outbreak of hostilities.

The government goes into the Prime Minister’s talks with Mr Obama influenced by the view he is a ‘lame duck’ president – and therefore focused on where a new Republican administration may go.

But, in the meantime, it is concerned about the inconsistency of the current US administration’s approach and the uncertainty that it creates in the region.